Obviously, Peter was in Rome fulfilling his apostolic duties as the chief
Apostle. More specifically, he was trying to correct the false doctrine that was
present in the Rome branch of the Church, which doctrine eventually led to
apostasy. Most of Paul's epistles in the New Testament were written for the
same purpose.

The New Testament makes no mention of Peter ever going to Rome. That’s
found in early Church traditions and references in writings. Catholicism
identifies Peter as the Bishop of Rome and the first Pope although the Papacy
didn’t even exist in Peter’s lifetime. It’s not clear to me
whether Peter had any leadership authority at all. But in Acts, he does figure
more prominently than any other of the twelve.

I think Dr. Peterson is alluding to Simon-Peter's call
to the ministry by Christ and subsequent conversion. Peter could have just as
easily lived his life as a fisherman, dying quietly in bed, and been forgotten
to history a few generations later. Instead, he answered the call to become a
fisher of men, died a martyr for the testimony of Christ, and will be remembered
through all generations.

Editors at DesNews typically write the
headlines, not the authors. Sometimes headlines end up a little disconnected
from the article.

As to the headline's question, there is a
wonderful story of Simon-Peter coming to Rome to set the Church in order.
According to the legend, Simon Magus (the guy from Acts 8) had come to Rome
claiming to be an apostle and was leading the Romans astray. Magus claimed
supernatural powers and appeared to fly. The people, amazed at Magus'
"powers," began to doubt. Peter, calling upon the powers of heaven,
commanded Magus to fall, and fall he did. He died shortly thereafter. Magus
was a favorite of Nero, who then sought an opportunity to kill Peter. The fire
provided the pretext.

Although the New Testament makes no mention of Peter
going to Rome, the early traditions of him being there are very strong ones.
They include mention by Clement, Tertullian, and Eusebius. I find it likely that
Peter did go to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Why he came there in the
first place is matter for speculation. I find it more likely he was there as an
emissary than as leader of the Rome Christian community as Catholic tradition
holds. But if he was there for any appreciable length of time, who can say?

=Yes, religion is a powerful motivator and can be the
catalyst for people to do=extraordinary things they would not otherwise do
– we should find this at least=as troubling as it uplifting.==If that is not clear, ask yourself what would motivate Christians to
torture=and burn their fellow countrymen for 500 years or 19 pious Muslims
to fly=planes into buildings.

I think the key is to be sure
what God is telling you to do, before you do it in the name of religion. I find
it very hard to believe that God would actually tell anyone "to torture and
burn their fellow countrymen for 500 years" or "to fly planes into
buildings" where thousands of innocent people would be killed.

@kvnsmnsn – “I find it very hard to believe that God would actually
tell anyone "to torture and burn their fellow countrymen for 500
years"”

If you read the histories of European middle ages
it becomes quite clear that otherwise good Christians were utterly convinced
they were doing God’s will in burning heretics, pagans,
“witches,” and other non-conformists.

We only judge
these actions wrong in retrospect, which raises the question “if God
cannot do a better job of communicating his will in real time, is it rational to
question the entire theistic believe system?” I think so…

Again, so we have the proper perspective and scope, we’re talking 500
years of burning heretics! This is not one isolated outbreak of passionate
violence but year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation
of systemic violence perpetrated by “followers of Christ.”

And it actually makes sense if you believe the worldview of the OT
(e.g., Exodus 22:18).

But this is not atypical of institutional
religion – read the Grand Inquisitor chapter in Brothers Karamazov.

All of this should give us great pause when submitting our will to
“men of God.”

1. a careful reading and addition of the deaths ordered by God/Moses in the
torah-pentateuch shows that moses, author of 5th (6th or 7th depending on the
choice of texts) commandment isrealites to kill 600K MEN/WOMEN/CHILDREN (and
oft times all the stock animals.) 600,000 may be an exaggeration by moses
"himself", but the sum remains at 600,000 human lives killed

2. samuel the prophet was commanded by the Lord to annoint saul, king of
israel. the Lord remembered what the Amalek kingdom did to Israel, so the Lord
via samuel told saul to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox
and sheep, camel and (DN banned word)." (I Sam 15)

saul decided
to spare some. saul's throne was removed; the Lord said "to obey is
better than sacrifice" and the Lord "repented that He had made Saul king
over Israel"

sometimes it is hard to read the Bible when it tells
us what we don't want to believe abt it, but the numbers and words are
there

interesting interpretation of john
21:18-19, but it isn't my interpretation, and it doesNOT tell peter
where,when,why,how or by whose hand/command he will die.

18 Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and
walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch
forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou
wouldest not.19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify
God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

(New
Testament | John 21:18 - 19)

peter, when you were young you directed
your own life and you were capable, but when you get old and feeble you will
need someone else to help you along, and sometimes to places you would not want
to go. follow Me

the john
scriptural passage may "actually usually be cited to mean ... " ...
whatever ... usually ...

which of course is a
"intrepretation" of something that isn't implied: young vs old , no
crucifiction (inverted or not,) in rome or not, etc. that is a lot of reading
in

i can't see that translation as anyway near the correct
meaning

peter had to remain faithful and diligent in his calling as
apostle, of testifying of Christ's divinity to glorify God; one glorifies
God by living a true and faithful life of righteousness and love - the same as
all christian followers glorifying God. i can't see evidence that a
martyr's death is more glorious than a lay follower of ancient age dieing
bearing testimony of Christ. will God love one more than the other ?

Not sure what you mean by translation. I checked several translations. All
seem to indicate the same. That when Peter gets older he will be girded by
others, his hands outstretched, and taken where he does not wish to go and that
in doing so he would follow Christ’s manner of death.

If Christ
meant a simple death from complications due to old age, the phrasing does not
seem to fit. Agreed that a faithful life is a wonderful thing. But through
long ages we have associated those that die defending their testimony to have
glorified God in so doing. It is hardly original to me. Hence it was said of
Joseph and Hyrum “He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and
his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has
sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother
Hyrum.”

Love has nothing to do with any of this. It is a
separate issue entirely.

I have never read any evidence that Peter ever was in Rome. Anything said about
Peter ever being in Rome may or may not be true. There is nothing in the Bible
that says Peter visited Rome. At the time Peter was on earth, the Christian
Church was based in Jerusalem where all of the Apostles lived.

if ye
love me keep my commandments. love and the other virtues have everything to do
with being a follower of Christ

granted "we have associated those
that die defending their testimony" as glorifying God, but (many times more)
X (many times more) X (many times more) (seventy times seven) glorify God by
living lives of virtue, honesty, faithfulness etc etc etc than have been
martyred

dieing at the hands of criminals is being the victim, not by
choice, not the sacrificial lamb. God is not glorified by the death of people.
one's death does not impress God

or possibly so in the case of
allah and insane extremistsor the koolade clanor lemmings

“…‘stretch out your hands’, and others
will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” Now Jesus
said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to Glorify
God. After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.” John
21:18,19). The kind of death, the hands of the person crucified are
‘stretched out’ and nailed to the cross.”

Hegesippus said that Nero (in Rome) sought to put
Peter to death. Jerome said that he was crucified, his head being down and his
feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be
crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was.